In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the only issue is whether the officer of the court is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar.

Given the foregoing, the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for two years, as recommended by the IBP Board of Governors, is proper.

The Court, however, will not adopt the recommendation of the IBP to order respondent to return the sum of P15,000.00 he received from complainant under the “Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase.”  This is a civil liability best determined and awarded in a civil case rather than the present administrative cases.

In Roa v. Moreno[12], the Court pronounced that “[i]n disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the only issue is whether the officer of the court is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar.  Our only concern is the determination of respondent’s administrative liability.  Our findings have no material bearing on other judicial action which the parties may choose to file against each other.”  While the respondent lawyer’s wrongful actuations may give rise at the same time to criminal, civil, and administrative liabilities, each must be determined in the appropriate case; and every case must be resolved in accordance with the facts and the law applicable and the quantum of proof required in each.  Section 5,[13] in relation to Sections 1[14] and 2[15] Rule 133 of the Rules of Court states that in administrative cases, such as the ones at bar, only substantial evidence is required, not proof beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases, or preponderance of evidence as in civil cases.  Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion[16].

The Court notes that based on the same factual antecedents as the present administrative cases, complainant instituted a criminal case for estafa against respondent, docketed as Criminal Case No. 3112-A, before the MTC.  When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action[17].   Unless the complainant waived the civil action, reserved the right to institute it separately, or instituted the civil action prior to the criminal action, then his civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the estafa committed by respondent is deemed instituted with Criminal Case No. 3112-A.  The civil liability that complainant may recover in Criminal Case No. 3112-A includes restitution; reparation of the damage caused him; and/or indemnification for consequential damages[18], which may already cover the P15,000.00 consideration complainant had paid for the subject property.

x x x."

EN BANC A.C. No. 4697, November 25, 2014, FLORENCIO A. SALADAGA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ARTURO B. ASTORGA, RESPONDENT.